Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss
#6
(05-12-2022, 02:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I messed up the OP.  I have corrected it now.  And I understand how the stats work now.

A "sack" is not a TFL if it is for zero yards.

According to PFR, Trey Hendrickson had 1.0 sacks against the Raiders in Week 11 but 0 TFL. The sack he got was near the end of the 4th quarter for -5 yards.

Maybe a sack can only be a TFL if the QB has turned into a runner? So if they're just standing there in the pocket, not trying to escape with their legs it's just a sack and not a TFL? Because Hendrickson had 2.0 sacks against the Packers and 2 TFL, and I didn't see any non-sack tackles that went for a loss by Hendrickson.
____________________________________________________________

The 2021 season Super Bowl was over 1,000 days ago.
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-12-2022, 01:20 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-12-2022, 02:05 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - TheLeonardLeap - 05-12-2022, 07:17 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-12-2022, 02:12 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-12-2022, 11:23 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-13-2022, 09:29 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-14-2022, 12:44 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-12-2022, 02:33 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - Dr.Z - 05-13-2022, 12:54 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-13-2022, 03:37 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-13-2022, 03:41 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-13-2022, 04:41 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - MasonDT70 - 05-15-2022, 07:29 PM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - grampahol - 05-14-2022, 10:25 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - grampahol - 05-15-2022, 10:51 AM
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-15-2022, 11:46 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)